Advertisement

Flanagan frustrating campus with lack of answers

It wasn’t long ago that students had yet to form any real opinion on former Illinois State President Tim Flanagan. Most would agree that Flanagan had been nearly invisible his first few months as president, making it nearly impossible to make a judgment.

It wasn’t until Flanagan’s resignation and the $480,000 that he received did he become essentially the most universally disliked person in central Illinois, or at least on this campus.

It’s only natural that students and the community would be both confused and angry about how Flanagan’s resignation was handled and its high cost. While the sum of money is of course important, I feel that the outcry surrounding it has drowned out what is an even greater issue, which is the total lack of information that has been released regarding nearly everything about Flanagan’s resignation.

The students that pay thousands of dollars to attend this University, as well as the surrounding community members that support this institution, are entitled to more information. Yet we have been completely left in the dark regarding almost every detail related to the resignation. At least to me, this is the most frustrating aspect of the entire fiasco.

For example, the account of the altercation between R. Patrick Murphy and Flanagan has been incredibly vague. What exactly, if anything, caused Flanagan to get so upset with Murphy? Was it an actual assault or a heated argument? The Pantagraph reported that “Murphy has alleged that Flanagan’s arms touched his torso,” but such wording doesn’t illuminate in any way what actually happened. That could imply that he simply touched him or that he struck him. There’s no way of knowing and we are left to make assumptions.

Assuming that Flanagan did actually attack Murphy, does Flanagan have a history of violence? If so, why didn’t the firm, that was paid nearly $100,000 to find Flanagan, know about it? Or did the man simply have a drastic character shift upon arriving at Normal?

I’m not defending Flanagan, but there are so few facts that it’s hard to make sense of the 18th president we barely knew. Was he committing any other unscrupulous acts that we don’t know about? Why wasn’t he attending meetings with the state legislature in Springfield? There have been no answers to any of these questions.

The Board of Trustees have told us that Flanagan was just not a “good fit” but still a decent guy, while other accounts would have us believe the opposite regarding that latter bit. I have no idea what to believe, but given how much we invested in Flanagan, it’s hard to believe after such a short period of time he was simply not a “good fit.”

The buyout of nearly half a million dollars is frustrating, but unfortunately relatively standard in resignations. That money is gone, and no amount of outcry or protest will change that. Due to the agreement with Flanagan to not disclose information regarding his resignation, we likely will never have answers either. It is that lack of answers in which students and the community are the recipients of the most disservice, as we are simply left to speculation and rumors. We deserve better than that.

Nick Ulferts is a junior English education major and columnist for The Vidette. Any questions or comments regarding his column can be sent to nlferts@ilstu.edu

8 Responses

President Flanagan was competent and well liked at FSU where an argument over landscaping would not have caused a resignation. There is more to this story and perhaps the board should tell the true reason to their forcing a resignation.

Could the students protest at the former President’s home on Gregory instead of on the quad? Let’s try and see if Flanagan will donate the money back to ISU. Since resigning his legacy could shed light on him wanting to help ISU students and not him wanting to save face. This could make him look kinder upon the responsibility had, the responsibility to the students here at ISU.

Timothy Flanagan was formally charged with disorderly conduct. But look a little deeper irregardless of the litigious climate in which we live. It does not take much effort to interpret the amount of money disgraced former Illinois State University Timothy Flanagan chose to pocket. Though any free thinking has to elect the protection of alleging their opinion herein, I am confident that stronger, valid and reliable allegations of misconduct lay beneath the payout.

First, naivety aside, the public has to remember that Timothy Flanagan had a bonafied choice on December 5, 2013 to restrain himself. He chose not to.

He had a choice to confess and apologize for his conduct unbecoming an employee for the state of Illinois the following work day/week. Instead. the superintendent of grounds was chosenly fired on 12/10/13 for involuntarily becoming the target of Flanagan’s assault.

Flanagan had over fifteen weeks to choose the high road. He had free will without restraint to approach the university administration, confess what he did to the superintendent, and develop an action plan for reconciliation and rehiring in accordance with suitable due process approved by union contracts and university improvisation. Flanagan chose to to do nothing. Across nearly one hundred days Flanagan’s free will to elect or reject “choice” was intact.

With no intention to sound pretentious or snobbish, I am very familiar with the culture and structure in both public and private colleges and universities. I say that only to demonstrate that the quantity of words and time I pay to this matter, though not appraised at $480018.00. Flanagan could have deliberately chosen to salvage some integrity and respectability becoming by requesting a prorated settlement. Of course this would mean he was already paid what his contract prescribed. Under an annual salary of $350,000 Flanagan’s 229 days of service as president of the university credited between August 15, 2013 and March 22, 2014, results in pre-tax daily income of $958.40, and a total prorated and pretax salary of $219,589.

Flanagan had choices. If you praise the half million dollar settlement in comparison to a cost of 1.3 million dollars in legal/court costs, you miss the greater substantial point. The matter would have never come to such a hilt had Flanagan made choices consistent with the bare minimal integrity asked of a university president.

Nonetheless, Flanagan used zero character to exacerbate his contract to the border of extorting the University of Illinois. He brought his timing and seizure of monies to a maxim of unearned greed that should be coined “FLANA-GAIN”.

Conveniently, his timing and seizure pursuant to contract came less than 48 hours prior to getting formally charged with criminal misconduct. He is entitled to get paid for the amount of weeks he worked — no one can dispute this fact. A 30 day eviction notice on the university house and car is reasonable.

No doubt $480K was a settlement sought by Flanagan and aggressively pushed to fruition by his attorneys. His choice to seek maximum settlement monies was a choice made to the detriment of the public who pay his salary in taxes (at least in part), and with regard to self and attorney interest. A physical assault should not enable a financial assault on more people. He had an opportunity to make a choice to send a symbolic message at Illinois State University.

Although Greenwood/Archer & Associates were hired to find viable candidates to interview for the presidential post, there is a lot to be said that an average, free-thinking person found out just as much and likely more about him during his University of Illinois service.

For example, last September Martha Coakley ordered a special investigation by the state treasurer into the alleged misspending of university funds by a junior administrator. Specifically Assistant for Alumni Relations, Robert Walmsley, was fired from Framingham State University in June 2013.

The university inexplicably failed to report knowledge of the missing funds for over three months. The news broke in late August 2013. The news disseminated like a parody of how state universities feel entitled to hide public information. The parody starred the Framingham State University director of human resources and a campus policeman. Aptly, HR tried to conceal the identity of the alleged over-spending employee and specifics about the six-figure balk, behind the tailor-made “matter of national security” line that has come to define unjustified concealment in higher education: “Its a personnel matter.” Meanwhile, campus police, who reports directly to university human resources and not the state police barracks, named Walmsley and more details about the spending gaff.

All news coverage reported that an employee, three months removed of getting fired, spent as much as $167,000 on the university’s professional charge card system. Human Resources and general council Rita Colucci added that they (Walmsley) may not have spent the entire amount. In fact the case file shows that Walmsley spent none of it. Having reached April 2014, an unprecedented ten months removed from incident without any update on one of the largest scale grand larcenies by a university in recent history, it is reliably conclusive there is no file.

Lets get real, $167,000 is a suspiciously large sum of money for a junior administrator to rack up. This is particularly true for someone like Walmsley, whose job was to solicit funds from alumni to fund university endeavors, while under the very high scrutiny and deep surveillance, in due consideration of Framingham State University’s poor financial track record, which had led to audits and accounting investigations by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Suspicions are abound on who spent these monies. Examination of recent criminal charges filed against former Framingham State University President Timothy Flanagan, who happened to officially leave Framingham State University in June 2013, reveals much to be investigated.

It is also worth mentioning that Timothy Flanagan saw to it that the Vice President of Academic Affairs Linda Vaden-Goad be hired in 2010, after she was under investigation in a well-documented civil lawsuit for discrimination against a colleague of mine & full-time faculty member and 40 year state employee Rosalie Appel. According to the case status PRIOR to Vaden-Goad’s hiring by Flanagan, Vaden-Goad and two other defendant’s characterized their own behavior toward Rosalie Appel as punitive and malicious. Because Appel protected her interests in court, Vaden-Goad et al., “…retaliated against her for filing this lawsuit by subjecting her to an escalating series of disciplinary measures. Defendants do not dispute, for purposes of this appeal, that Appel successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination (See Appel v. Spiridon).

Vaden-Goad retaliated by accessing Appel’s medical records without Appel’s permission, against regulations enforced by HIPPA, and compelled Ms. Appel to imperatively have a psychological evaluation by a university appointed psychologist on threat of termination. On declining, Vaden-Goad aggressively pursued her termination.

Nonetheless Vaden-Goad, someone deserving to be sidelined, and someone who should have chosen to remove herself from higher education to clean uo her act, was smoothly transferred to Framingham State University and promoted to Vice President of Academic Affairs by then Framingham State University president Timothy Flanagan.

According to court records, the “controlling question” was “whether the defendants show indisputably that they would have taken the same adverse actions against a different administrator or faculty member, namely implementation and enforcement of a university appointed psychologist, based on unlawful access to Appel’s medical records. In addition, would someone else endure the same progressive retaliation that Appel experienced, even in the absence of her protected speech.” The district court denied Vaden-Gosd et al. qualified immunity on Appel’s First Amendment claim as the actions of Vaden-Goad et al. were motivated, implemented and enforced by impermissible retaliation.

Appel also claimed that defendants retaliated against her for bringing a lawsuit in and of itself in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that they violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to privacy. So why hire someone who has a track record of discrimination.

These facts establish a more plausible blueprint on there whereabouts of these missing $167,000 in monies. A September 2013 settlement hearing called for monetary damages that are much more comparable to the missing Framingham State University funds.
Keep in mind that the Flanagan is a plausible suspect, especially alleged plausible when considering that subtracting $167,000 plus interest from the $480418 resignation settlement nearly equals Flanagan’s annual salary Illinois State University salary of $350,000.

These allegations herein are just that allegations; but they are very informed to allege Flanagan or Vaden-Goad may be fully responsible for the missing $167,000 from abusing the Framingham State University charge card. Assuming that Flanagan most likely had to resign at the Uuniversity of Illinois for more than a simple assault, it is possible and alleged that FSU discovered Flanagan or Vaden-Goad was responsible for the overspending, and moved against Flanagan to retrieve the overspending amount after Flanagan was under investigation. Higher education in MA and IL, between June 2013 and April 2014 is a shameful and sorry drive down the low road by self-entitled elitists who exhibit criminal behavior with no remorse.

This is an offering to debunk the mythology of politics in academia. In other words, academia is rife with just as much bull as any other institution.

Before I get into the Timothy Flanagan matter, its important to debunk some of the flagrantly conceited false assumptions and perceptions about colleges and universities. For straight-shooters like me please don’t stop reading this article because my conveyance can sound pretentious and foul. I just want to reach people. To a certain extent, you fall into the traps academia has set on you if you expect less pretension or better taste.

How did Timothy Flanagan, walk away from ISU with nearly a half million dollars? This is the question to which we want answers. To put it in perspective, each Illinois State University student paid Flanagan $25. Although there are validity problems in dividing his payout by enrollment, it gives a sense of scale. As of April 20, 2014 the public has no definitive answer why Flanagan was provided these monies, even after evaluating the terms of Flanagan’s contract. We want to know why the university has invoked faux sovereignty from responsibility.

Silence invokes suspicion, and which leads opinion leaders to research precedent payouts and apply former non-glories to monies the disgraced former Illinois State University president, and former Framingham State University president Timothy Flanagan chose to pocket. We are confident that stronger, valid and reliable allegations of misconduct lay beneath the outrageous payout of nearly a half million dollars. Numerated below are verifiable facts that the public needs to know, and ones that the university is counting on having minimal publicity.

First, the misconduct was inaugurated before Dietz stepped in as president, and before Flanagan resigned. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MACLEAN COUNTY ILLINOIS HAD EVERY INTENTION TO REMAIN THE STATE’s PROSECUTOR, according to DA’s assistant. On

First, the district attorney prosecuting Flanagan is Jason Chambers. In spite of corroborating news articles across The Chicago Tribune, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Pantograph, which quoted Chambers decision to recuse himself due to his personal ties to Illinois State University, and to appoint a special prosecutor to take his place, Chambers will not have recused himself nor appointed someone else. In four conversations with Chamber’s assistant , she stated, “The DA won’t be stepping down. He will prosecute. We’re waiting for the news reports to die down.”

An announcement of recusal was calculated to soften the blow against any university liability for having personal connections, while enough time transfers and subsides awareness and deactivates recall into press coverage.

Second, do not presume the myth that because colleges or universities employ intelligent people, they are more than capable of resolving conflict ethically and legally. The business model guides the administration of nearly every public college and university. Despite the fact that these institutions are not-for-profit, they use the same multi, statistical costs/earnings, configuration that publicly trading corporations employ.

It is very important to debunk one “lemon” that Illinois State trustees, university representatives and bureaucrats keep trying to squeeze on the public “The 480K settlement was the better of two evils.”

To be fair, it is admissible to argue that a $480K settlement, internally negotiated between Flanagan and the board of trustees, would cost far less money than the projected seven figure cost to settle the matter in court. The latter would place an estimated 2-3 times more strain on the taxpayers’ wallets to resolve.

In exchange for his immediate resignation as president, Illinois State University agreed to grant Flanagan several financial and miscellaneous contributions. First, ISU bequeathed approximately $135,000 of remaining monies he had not yet been paid of his $350,000 salary. This approximate figure represents the remaining balance he was to earn in his first year.

But on what grounds is Flanagan entitled to have an additional lump sum of $350,000, an amount he will not earn between 2014-2015? Since the December 5, 2013 altercation, the university’s trustees, administrators, faculty, and staff have offered University representatives have not provided a valid and direct explanation for the settlement.

The hint of explanation is the ludicrous assumption that the trustees and Flanagan were limited to the two choices, also known as “the best and the worst of two evils”. If the trustees argue that sometimes they have to take on pressing private matters with public dollars, then certainly they are capable of brainstorming more than two evils that can resolve this matter.
“Putting this behind us,” “Let us move forward,” and “don’t look back” all express direction, while inviting denial and groupthink in the University of Illinois culture. The words are rehearsed to cause the public to acquiesce their frustration of Timothy Flanagan and the suspicious monies he was given upon resigning. These words are also designed to distract the public from the fact that other choices were available.

Third, naivety aside, the public has to remember that Timothy Flanagan had a bonafied choice on December 5, 2013 to restrain himself instead of intentionally initiating an altercation He chose not to do so.

He had a choice to confess and apologize to Murphy for his conduct unbecoming an employee for the state of Illinois the following work day, on 12/6/13, and again on 12/9/13. Instead Flanagan fired Murphy on 12/10/13 for involuntarily becoming the target of Flanagan’s assault.

Flanagan had over fifteen weeks to choose the high road. He had free will without restraint to approach the university administration, confess what he did to the superintendent, and develop an action plan for reconciliation and rehiring in accordance with suitable due process approved by union contracts and university improvisation. Flanagan chose to to do nothing. Across nearly one hundred days Flanagan’s free will to elect or reject “choice” was intact.
We are very familiar with the administrative culture and structure in both public and private colleges and universities, as well as with Flanagan, though we would never appraise our time spent writing the words herein at nearly a half million dollars.

Flanagan could have deliberately chosen to salvage some integrity and respectability becoming by requesting a prorated settlement. Of course this would mean he was already paid what his contract prescribed. Under an annual salary of $350,000 Flanagan’s 229 days of service as president of the university credited between August 15, 2013 and March 22, 2014, results in pre-tax daily income of $958.40, and a total prorated and pretax salary of $219,589.

Flanagan had choices. If you praise the half million dollar settlement in comparison to a cost of 1.3 million dollars in legal/court costs, you miss the greater substantial point. The matter would have never come to such a hilt had Flanagan made choices consistent with the bare minimal integrity asked of a university president.

Nonetheless, Flanagan used zero character to exacerbate his contract to the border of extorting the University of Illinois. He brought his timing and seizure of monies to a maxim of unearned greed that should be coined “FLANA-GAIN”.

Conveniently, his timing and seizure pursuant to contract came less than 48 hours prior to getting formally charged with criminal misconduct. He is entitled to get paid for the amount of weeks he worked — no one can dispute this fact. A 30 day eviction notice on the university house and car is reasonable.

No doubt $480K was a settlement sought by Flanagan and aggressively pushed to fruition by his attorneys. His choice to seek maximum settlement monies was a choice made to the detriment of the public who pay his salary in taxes (at least in part), and with regard to self and attorney interest. A physical assault should not enable a financial assault on more people. He had an opportunity to make a choice to send a symbolic message at Illinois State University.

Third, the board of trustees inexplicably paid Flanagan an additional year’s salary, totaling $350,000, for work never to be done.

A thorough evaluation of Flanagan’s contract does not cite a written agreement to allot Flanagan an additional year of salary, under any foreseeable or unforeseen circumstance. It also does not entitle the trustees to privately play with the public’s money.

Also, financial compensation does not pay for so-called gag orders on Flanagan’s resignation. Notwithstanding Flanagan resigned while authorities had him under investigation for assaulting fellow employee R. Patrick Murphy on December 5, 2013.

Unless otherwise requested by law enforcement, gag-orders are nothing but the upper class’s phantom entitlement to some “Or else!”-ing. In other words, let’s hurl threats with unspecified consequences to people who are unlikely to question the sincerity and enforcement of organized silence. Gag orders have long had merit on investigations still approaching the nexus of filing criminal charges on a defendant.

Almost all gag orders, suitable for misdemeanor crime investigations, are officiated to protect potential targets BEFORE law enforcement press charges. Hypothetically, an example of an honest gag order would be (again, hypothetically) a request of silence from those remaining ISU workers who witnessed Flanagan’s behavior toward Murphy on 12/5/13. At least one law enforcement official, likely an off campus one, would standby to protect those workers from university or external retaliation of any kind.

Gag orders are not legally enforceable unless a judge or magistrate orders it. They are, however, thrust around the necks and mouths of unsuspecting employees who fear the mortality of their jobs.

In academia, a chair, dean, vice-president or HR director order will approach relevant employees in private to insinuate dire, job-losing and even unlawful consequence to disobeying the gag order as possible. Then, they will enforce it to the furthest extent the law provides: none at all.

Once again the administration is counting on their employees to show as many uneducated colors as possible. The insinuations provided before were obviously meant to prime or inject the request with as much unenforceable fear and severity as possible. They depend on employees to fear talking about Flanagan, fear having an opinion and most certainly fear retaliation if they choose to join the protests. They depend on employees to lose their thinking cap. For those employees who reclaim their caps after the administration is finished telling their tall tale of consequences, they realize that all their employers can do is ask employees to keep quiet.

They may also realize why the employer went to such long extent to gain silence: it is counterintuitive for ISU employees to obey verbal gag orders, for the employer is not going to fire another worker while under investigation and subject to scrutiny for questionable treatment of employees. The larger the stakes, the dirtier the institution will behave.

Finally, although Greenwood/Archer & Associates were hired to find viable candidates to interview for the presidential post, they either overlooked Flanagan’s questionable financial track record at Framingham State University, and his interest in appointing individuals charged with discrimination versus passing over those with records beyond reproach.

Last September, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley ordered a special investigation by the state treasurer into the alleged misspending of university funds by a junior administrator. Specifically Assistant for Alumni Relations, Robert Walmsley, was fired from Framingham State University in June 2013.

The university inexplicably failed to report knowledge of the missing funds for over three months. The news broke in late August 2013. The news disseminated like a parody of how state universities feel entitled to hide public information. The parody starred the Framingham State University director of human resources and a campus policeman. Aptly, HR tried to conceal the identity of the alleged over-spending employee and specifics about the six-figure balk, behind the tailor-made “matter of national security” line that has come to define unjustified concealment in higher education: “Its a personnel matter.” Meanwhile, campus police, who reports directly to university human resources and not the state police barracks, named Walmsley and more details about the spending gaff.

All news coverage reported that an employee, three months removed of getting fired, spent as much as $167,000 on the university’s professional charge card system. Human Resources and general council Rita Colucci added that they (Walmsley) may not have spent the entire amount. In fact the case file shows that Walmsley spent none of it. Having reached April 2014, an unprecedented ten months removed from incident without any update on one of the largest scale grand larcenies by a university in recent history, it is reliably conclusive there is no file.

Lets get real, $167,000 is a suspiciously large sum of money for a junior administrator to rack up. This is particularly true for someone like Walmsley, whose job was to solicit funds from alumni to fund university endeavors, while under the very high scrutiny and deep surveillance, in due consideration of Framingham State University’s poor financial track record, which had led to audits and accounting investigations by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Suspicions are abound on who spent these monies. Examination of recent criminal charges filed against former Framingham State University President Timothy Flanagan, who happened to officially leave Framingham State University in June 2013, reveals much to be investigated.

It is also worth mentioning that Timothy Flanagan saw to it that the Vice President of Academic Affairs Linda Vaden-Goad be hired in 2010, after she was under investigation in a well-documented civil lawsuit for discrimination against a colleague of mine & full-time faculty member and 40 year state employee Rosalie Appel. According to the case status PRIOR to Vaden-Goad’s hiring by Flanagan, Vaden-Goad and two other defendant’s characterized their own behavior toward Rosalie Appel as punitive and malicious. Because Appel protected her interests in court, Vaden-Goad et al., “…retaliated against her for filing this lawsuit by subjecting her to an escalating series of disciplinary measures. Defendants do not dispute, for purposes of this appeal, that Appel successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination (See Appel v. Spiridon).

Vaden-Goad retaliated by accessing Appel’s medical records without Appel’s permission, against regulations enforced by HIPPA, and compelled Ms. Appel to imperatively have a psychological evaluation by a university appointed psychologist on threat of termination. On declining, Vaden-Goad aggressively pursued her termination.

Nonetheless Vaden-Goad was smoothly transferred to Framingham State University and promoted to Vice President of Academic Affairs, by (then) Framingham State University president Timothy Flanagan.

According to court records on the Vaden-Goad case, the “controlling question” was “whether…[she]…would have taken the same adverse actions against a different administrator or faculty member, namely implementation and enforcement of a university appointed psychologist, based on unlawful access to Appel’s medical records. In addition, would someone else endure the same progressive potent retaliation that Appel experienced, even in the absence of her protected speech.” The district court denied Vaden-Gosd et al. qualified immunity on Appel’s First Amendment claim as the actions of Vaden-Goad et al. were motivated, implemented and enforced by impermissible retaliation.

Appel also claimed that defendants retaliated against her for bringing a lawsuit in and of itself in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that they violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to privacy. So why hire someone who has a track record of discrimination.

These facts establish a more plausible blueprint on there whereabouts of these missing $167,000 in monies. A September 2013 settlement hearing called for monetary damages that are much more comparable to the missing Framingham State University funds.
Keep in mind that the Flanagan is a plausible person of interest, especially alleged plausible when considering that subtracting $167,000 plus interest from the $480418 resignation settlement nearly equals Flanagan’s annual salary Illinois State University salary of $350,000.

These allegations herein are just that allegations; but they are very informed to allege Flanagan or Vaden-Goad may be fully responsible for the missing $167,000 from abusing the Framingham State University charge card. Assuming that Flanagan most likely had to resign at the Uuniversity of Illinois for more than a simple assault, it is possible and alleged that FSU discovered Flanagan or Vaden-Goad was responsible for the overspending, and moved against Flanagan to retrieve the overspending amount after Flanagan was under investigation. Higher education in MA and IL, between June 2013 and April 2014 is a shameful and sorry drive down the low road by self-entitled elitists who exhibit criminal behavior with no remorse.

Excellent editorial. Across this country, many young people are finding the high cost of college making an advanced degree unattainable for them. Students are graduating with college debt burdens that will take them years to pay off. Yet, ISU’s President was paid off without sufficient explanation to the students. These sort of big contract pay-offs need to end. Universities have an obligation to their stakeholders to be transparent. Thank you to the readers who further illuminated this issue with their comments.